New Delhi: After a petitioner-in-person filed a synopsis running into 128 pages, the Supreme Court said that the registry should have advised the litigant to trim down the lengthy synopsis, which was “loaded with details much of which was not relevant”.
“The appellant, who has appeared in person, has filed a synopsis running into 128 pages, loaded with details much of which is not relevant for our purposes. We understand that the appellant is not a trained lawyer, but it is for the Registry to have asked the appellant to trim down the synopsis. A synopsis cannot run into 128 pages!” said a bench headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhuliya.
The Bench, also comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, asked the Registrar (Judicial) to take note of this, particularly the cases where litigants are allowed to appear in-person.
The appellant, appearing in-person, challenged the validity of the Allahabad High Court order, which had set aside the 2019 decision of the Family Court and restored the Section 125 CrPC petition.
The Allahabad HC also directed that the said petition should be decided on merits by the Additional Principal Judge of Agra Family Court.
Rejecting the special leave petition, the apex court said, the impugned order was in favour of the appellant and only directed the Agra Family Court to adjudicate the matter afresh which was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution.
“The appellant instead of appearing before the Family Court, Agra has directly challenged this order of the High Court before this Court, which we think is not proper,” it added.
In August last year, the top court had stressed that bulky synopsis in the pleadings ought to be avoided after a bench headed by Justice Abhay S Oka noted that while the impugned order of the high court had six pages, there were more than 60 pages of synopsis and 27 pages in the special leave petition filed.
The Supreme Court, in August 2023, had disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking guidelines for setting a page limit with regard to petitions or written submissions filed in judicial proceedings.
“How can we say in all matters that there should be a word limit or a page limit on written submissions?” had asked a bench led by (then) CJI D.Y. Chandrachud to the PIL litigant.
The CJI-led bench had said that though the concern raised in the PIL is “laudable” but it is difficult to frame “one size fits all” direction of such nature.
It had clarified that if the petitioner has any concrete suggestions, he is at liberty to make a representation before the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court.
The plea had claimed that lack of any specific rules defining the page limit of petitions filed before the court results in delay in justice delivery.
(IANS)
